Affirming its recognition of reproductive rights and its responsibility to protect these rights,

Mindful, however, that there are reasonable and relevant interests in reducing abortions in certain circumstances that are prohibited by GAR#286 absolutely,

Regretting that GAR#286 prevents meaningful and necessary action against sex-selective abortion - a practice that often leads to crippling imbalances in gender demographics and exacerbates social gender inequality - undermining its enduring commitment to promoting social equality,

Understanding that the notion of terminating pregnancies up until the infant is birthed, which is permitted by GAR#286, poses a serious and legitimate ethical concern to many member nations,

Regarding GAR#286 as an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority that does not reflect the legitimate underpinnings behind the right to reproductive choice,

Believing that such a radical approach to an issue as sensitive and divisive as reproductive choice is inconsistent with its extant commitment towards international cooperation,

Abortion has long been a subject of debate, usually heated, in the World Assembly. The two resolutions "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms" have largely settled the matter for the past two years (or more, in the case of "On Abortion" settling the question of an outright ban). From time to time, however, an attempt is made to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms".

The present proposal to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" is well constructed so as to plausibly pass. It opens its criticism of the resolution with a women's rights issue: sex-selective abortion. It follows this up with the unpleasant topic of late-term abortion. It encourages the notion of a replacement resolution, which would address the claimed deficiencies in "Reproductive Freedoms" while still protecting the same freedoms. This combines the two core arguments of two previous attempts to repeal the resolution, arguments related to improvements in policy the author suggests would be desirable.

Nonetheless, those with strong views in favor of reproductive freedoms will find antipathy to their views in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". The preferred law of this proposal author, a drafted replacement available on the onsite forums, would be. It would not protect reproductive freedoms as strictly from the legislative power of member states as current law. In particular, it requires only that regulations of abortion not "unnecessarily impugn" individual rights, rather than more sweepingly requiring that no regulations be tailored to abortion only.

On the substance of the proposal's criticisms of the resolution, there are three reasons one might seek to repeal the resolution. Either one disagrees with it on principle, believes more of the questions of policy it addresses should be resolved locally, or believes that the specific points of policy on sex-selective abortion or late-term abortion are problems worth re-legislating over. For many, this proposal is rooted in either certain moral values or the principles of national sovereignty. For others, values of social justice or valuing viable fetuses require pulling back a sweeping law to allow more flexible legislation. If one values a pregnant woman's individual rights higher, however, there is no question that personal autonomy is protected by the resolution in a way that is both necessary and proper.

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Ministry recommends against this resolution. We do not expect unanimity on this matter, and there is no issue with voting for the proposed repeal if you disagree with what we surmise to be the majority position. Indeed, voting your opinion is encouraged. We expect many will do so: this is not the sort of matter that sees a unanimous vote.

WA work can be a thankless unending slog. Therefore when I do it, given that it's the same resolutions across all regions in NS, I will seek to share the work I'm doing in all the regions I'm involved in that welcome it.

I happened to write up that analysis as TNP MoWA. This is a fact, and I don't much mind people remarking on it.

If we're interested in a formally separate program, I'd be happy to discuss that with the Citizen-Delegate or whomever.

Indeed, Taijitu might even be able to involved in a new version of WALL (I wouldn't be surprised if there was interest in recreating the WALL with a different group of regions, given the end of TNP's alliance with Balder and other challenges the organization has faced, and I'm sure Taijitu would be welcome.) (I'm not speaking here as someone who has any power regarding TNP's foreign affairs, of course, as such.)